POWIP Piece of Work In Progress – Former Abode of Dan Collins

Another DoJ Scandal, plus Charlie Rangel

The leaked report accusing Chris Christie of having exceeded his expense limits in 23 trips in the period 2007 to 2009 by a total of about $2000 turns out to have been written by an ethically challenged DoJ employee with a history of rabid partisanship. The question is why Maura Lee is still employed in the Department.

Among the transgressions Lee stands accused of are breaking into a conservative Christian's Department email account, messaging other liberal members of the Department urging them to leak information to the Washington Post, sharing illegally acquired personal information about other employees with co-workers, and urging others in the Civil Rights Division, where she worked before being reassigned, not to pursue cases so that Bush wouldn't have any prosecutions in that area to his credit. That's pretty amazing. This woman should have been out on her ear for the email thing, alone.

The DC's piece notes that, strangely enough, a report on DoJ employees exceeding their own travel expense budgets by tens of thousands of dollars hasn't been leaked.

******

FAIL:

see more funny videos

While we're on the subject of ethics, Charlie Rangel delivered some bluster at his long-delayed ethics hearing yesterday, claimed he hadn't had time to work up a defense, said that he wasn't able to afford the legal fees, and refused to attend the hearing. With or without Charlie, the hearings have already descended into farce:

With Mr. Rangel absent, R. Blake Chisam, the panel's chief counsel, laid out the particulars of the indictment. Several times, he replayed video clips of Mr. Rangel acknowledging missteps or reporting failures in past speeches. Mr. Chisam said Mr. Rangel has not challenged any of the evidence in the record, and the panel had enough evidence before them to vote immediately.

"The facts here are the facts. The omissions are the omissions. The inaccuracies are the inaccuracies," he said. "The case is ripe for decision."

But under questioning from Rep. G.K. Butterfield, North Carolina Democrat, Mr. Chisam said the record did not directly prove that Mr. Rangel tried to profit personally from the purported infractions.

"I see no evidence of corruption. It's hard to answer the question of personal financial benefit ...," Mr. Chisam said. " I believe that the congressman, quite frankly, was overzealous in many of the things that he did, and at least sloppy in his personal finances."

So, it looks like the line is going to be that although Rangel violated a variety of House rules to his benefit, none of those violations amounts to a "personal financial benefit," so he can't be convicted of corruption. The range of punishments available to the eight-member panel runs from reprimand, which is what Joe Wilson got for his (true) "You lie!" outburst, to expulsion.

The panel opted to discuss the 13 charges against Rangel behind closed doors.

For some reason, Tom DeLay has decided to comment on the situation, saying that he thinks that the Congressman is being treated unfairly:

"In the case of Rangel, I think it's unfair it's taken two years to come to this and right before an election," he told reporters on a conference call.

That's some pretty contorted logic, there, Tom, considering that his constituents really don't care.

The last such ethics trial was in 2002, involving James Traficant.

Treacher: "I declare Charlie Rangel not guilty by reason of hilarity."

Dan Collins

Dan Collins is a dude who blogs. He used to blog elsewhere. Now he blogs here.

More Posts - Website